Video: Abortionist challenges protesters to adopt “ugly black babies”

posted at 12:41 pm on August 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’re a few days late to this story, which is “ugly” indeed, but not necessarily for the reason some may think. Pro-life activists challenged Charlotte abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani at his door about his practice, which Virmani hotly defended. As LifeNews and the Washington Examiner both note, Virmani offered up an argument that is not at all unique, but is rarely put so baldly:

Charlotte abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani was caught on camera telling pro-lifers to “adopt one of those ugly black babies.” …

Virmani defended his practice of abortion as an effort to save taxpayers money and prevent crime. “I as a taxpayer do not wish to pay for those babies to be born and brought up; and kill those people in Colorado,” he said in reference to the Colorado theatre killer.

Notably, the Colorado killer who killed 13 and injured 58 moviegoers was a physically healthy white male born to a middle-class couple.

Operation Save America representatives can be heard on the video saying, “We will adopt them.”

There are actually three arguments from Virmani, two of which are often made, and one of which only rarely is. That’s the inclusion of “black” in Vermani’s emotional retort, a rather interesting inclusion, considering Virmani’s south-Asian accent. Virmani almost certainly is assuming that pro-life Americans are racist by nature. He’s supporting his position by assuming that conservatives would balk at adopting a child other than a Caucasian, which is not just offensive and presumptuous, it’s a clear sign of another kind of bigotry altogether than what this first looks like – but not the kind of racism that some have imputed to Virmani.

The other two go more to the thrust of abortion support, and they are related. The first argument is that it rids society of undesirable actors presupposes that all unexpected pregnancies produce evil results, or even that it produces evil results out of proportion to desired pregnancies. Second, the use of the word “ugly” in connection to the usefulness of abortion underscores the utilitarian approach to human life on which the first argument relies. If an individual human life is “ugly” in or out of the womb, does that give us the right to snuff it out, regardless of whatever value system is used to make that determination? Connecting the two, are we who have been allowed to live wise enough to judge the potential of these human lives to sanguinely throw more than a million of them away in the trash every year?

The last argument — that no one will want these children — is easily refuted by the lengthy wait times for adoption, even in private adoption organizations. There are millions of people who cannot have children for medical reasons who want nothing more than an infant to add to their families, and most more than one. At times, the only hope these people have is that an intervention will take place before an expectant mother goes to see a Virmani or his ilk, who routinely sell despair at a profit while ending lives that may have built a family, found cures for diseases, produced groundbreaking technology, and so on.

Despair is really the true disease at work here, and despair is all that really profits in the end. The cure is hope, and reaching those who are despairing with that hope before Virmani and his colleagues can make their sale.

Update: I clarified the language a little after the video to make my point more plain. Also, like some in the comments, I am a little uncomfortable with activists demonstrating at the abortionist’s home — although Virmani didn’t seem to mind enough to ignore them, as he engaged them in debate. As I recall, we all had a lot of criticism for progressive protesters who staged demonstrations at the homes of AIG execs and such.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Ed, I think the main difference between the AIG protestors and these protestors is I don’t see these protestors being a threat to the doctor or even making a threat to the doctor. Can you say that about the AIG protestors?

I’m going to give him some leeway here because I’m sure I would be a little more emotional and on edge if some people showed up at my door with a camera to debate me.

I cant say I’ve always been against abortion and it is a sore point for me. As a man I would never attempt to force my view on a Woman or anyone else for that matter and I’m not against abortion for Religious reasons. I certainly dont think that abortions should be used as a form of birth control and that’s the part I’m against.

To this doctors point, as a Black person I do realize that Black babies are much less likely then their White counterparts to be adopted and so I understand his arguement there, and although it came across kind of crass, I understand what he was trying to say with the “ugly,Black baby” comment.

He’s better then me, no matter my views if you come to my door doing something like this I’m going to tell you to get the **** off my property.

Nothing says “conservative” like harassing a private citizen at his own door because of his (completely legal) occupation and then uploading a video of the encounter online to smear him for expressing constitutionally protected views.

Armin Tamzarian on August 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

So if this were 1850, you would loathe anyone who went to the home of a slavetrader to expose the way he was treating his “merchandise”?

How did you arrive at that arbitrary deadline (or lifeline)? You do realize, don’t you, that you’re talking about the very same baby at five weeks and at five months?

In fact, from the very moment the egg and sperm join, a new life begins, with a human DNA combination that is made from the parents’, but isn’t identical to theirs. From that moment on, all that is needed is time and nourishment for the tiny human being to reach your arbitrary five month mark, and then go on to become an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult.

He or she is the very same human being at all of those stages of development — just as you and I were.

PLEASE tell me that you (or members of your family) have had abortions –

It would be so very nice to know that there won’t be any more like you running around in the next generation….

TeresainFortWorth on August 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Of course they have. My mother had one in the 70′s when she got pregnant by rape. Then my wife and I had one about four years ago. We already have three kids and couldn’t afford and didn’t really want another.

Well I personally wouldn’t support one after that point because that’s when you actually have the beginning of a life. But if the mothers health is at risk or the baby will have complications then it’s up to that family and their doctors to do what is best.

SPECIAL HISTORICAL NOTE: Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood (which is now the official abortion-factory subsidiary of the d-cRAT socialist party), was an avowed racist and bigot who believed in eugenics, and wanted blacks and other minorities eradicated by giving them access to abortion and other reproduction limiting methods !!!!!!!

Well I personally wouldn’t support one after that point because that’s when you actually have the beginning of a life. But if the mothers health is at risk or the baby will have complications then it’s up to that family and their doctors to do what is best.

My mother had one in the 70′s when she got pregnant by rape. Then my wife and I had one about four years ago. We already have three kids and couldn’t afford and didn’t really want another.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

It is so sad that your mother was raped, and that your brother or sister who was conceived in that attack was not allowed to live. Aborting a rape victim’s baby never undoes the violence done to the mother, but rather makes a second victim. Both victims — mother and child — deserve care and assistance.

Even during the 1970s, there were ministries and organizations who would have loved to have helped your mother carry your brother or sister to term, and then find an adoptive family. I know, because during the ’70s, I worked at a Salvation Army Home and Hospital, which helped mothers through difficult pregnancy situations and helped them — and their babies — get a fresh start.

Even if you and your wife were not able to care for an additional child, it is so sad that you did not offer to let another couple adopt the one you felt you could not raise. One never knows how another person’s life will turn out, but everyone deserves a chance, wouldn’t you now agree? After all, your mother gave you a chance.

I wonder — if your mother now told you that you had been conceived in rape, would you say, “I should have been aborted”?

I can’t believe that no one in this whole thread has yet said the one word which sums up the whole situation:

EUGENICS.

The doctor is expressing the eugenics view — the exact justification given by Margaret Sanger, by the way — of the need for abortion.

As Sanger and the early- 20th-century progressives openly argued, we need to legalize abortion to get rid of “undesirables” in human society. When pressed, “undesirables” were specifically defined as:

- Deformed or ugly children
- Stupid or mentally deficient children
- Negro children
- Children of criminals.

Or some combination of above, since in the progressive view there was a large overlap in the categories.

Since it’s not really possible to determine at birth or prior to birth if a child was going to be ugly, stupid or criminal, the easiest way was to rely on the new science of genetics to state that any child born to ugly, stupid or criminal parents was likely to grow up to become ugly, stupid or criminal itself. And the same held true, obviously, for Negro children being born to Negro parents.

This eugenics argument for abortion was widely enunciated and widely accepted in intellectual and progressive circles, until WWII brought shame and discredit to the eugenics movement, which then went “underground.” The publicly stated justifications for abortion changed after WWII, but everyone knows the real rationale remained unchanged: To rid the world of “ugly black babies,” and other similar “undesirables.” This doctor, not being as familiar with the American style of nonstop cultural mendacity and The Big Lie, just blurted out when he and most other progressive abortion advocates feel in their hearts.

I can’t believe that no one in this whole thread has yet said the one word which sums up the whole situation:

EUGENICS.

The doctor is expressing the eugenics view — the exact justification given by Margaret Sanger, by the way — of the need for abortion.

As Sanger and the early- 20th-century progressives openly argued, we need to legalize abortion to get rid of “undesirables” in human society. When pressed, “undesirables” were specifically defined as:

- Deformed or ugly children
- Stupid or mentally deficient children
- N egro children
- Children of criminals.

Or some combination of above, since in the progressive view there was a large overlap in the categories.

Since it’s not really possible to determine at birth or prior to birth if a child was going to be ugly, stupid or criminal, the easiest way was to rely on the new science of genetics to state that any child born to ugly, stupid or criminal parents was likely to grow up to become ugly, stupid or criminal itself. And the same held true, obviously, for N egro children being born to N egro parents.

This eugenics argument for abortion was widely enunciated and widely accepted in intellectual and progressive circles, until WWII brought shame and discredit to the eugenics movement, which then went “underground.” The publicly stated justifications for abortion changed after WWII, but everyone knows the real rationale remained unchanged: To rid the world of “ugly black babies,” and other similar “undesirables.” This doctor, not being as familiar with the American style of nonstop cultural mendacity and The Big Lie, just blurted out when he and most other progressive abortion advocates feel in their hearts.

Yes, I saw that — my comment took 12 minutes to type and post, so that when I started writing, TeaPartyNation’s comment at 1:59 had not yet been made, so that by the time my comment finally appeared, my claim about no one having yet mentioned abortion was no longer true! So goes life.

Of course not, but a first trimester glob of biomatter isn’t a person to begin with. It has no brain.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Look, I get that you’re pro-abortion and, while I despise your position on this issue, I’d accept your stance if you weren’t so intellectually dishonest about it. You know, I know, everybody with any opinion on this topic knows that a fetus is a human life. Pro-abortionists cover for their morally repugnant position by trying to convince themselves and anyone who will listen that’s it’s just a “glob”, but they still know that it’s a human life their advocating taking. So, they have to go one step further and deny that there’s a God or any form of moral judgement that will be imposed on them for what they truly know to be a repugnant and vile act.

Now you know how your aborted baby feels, YOU didn’t give it a chance!

Yet here you are espousing abortion as tho it is a Badge of Honor!

You are a dishonorable person…

Scrumpy on August 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Not a badge of honor, just not something to be sorry or ashamed of. It’s a perfectly safe and normal medical procedure. If you’re Christian you obviously have other issues to consider. That’s not my problem.

Of course not, but a first trimester glob of biomatter isn’t a person to begin with.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Both of my wife’s pregnancies were high risk so we had ultrasounds very often (they we’re at least every month) and I attended almost all of them with her. I was amazed at how early recognizable features showed up. In the very early ones you could actually watch the heart beating. I cannot believe anyone who would tell me that watching my son’s heart beat at that moment was not watching a human being.

Riiiiiiiiiiight – Try saying that to my face, “Doctor.” I’m a guy who’s going to China by the end of the year to pick up his son.

Hint, “Doctor.” He’s not white.

crazy_legs on August 8, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Many congratulations to you !!
Enjoy the trip and enjoy seeing China.
My God Daughter is from China and her parents have been over the top since they brought her home eight years ago.

I travel to PRC a bit and one of best parts of any trip is getting on homeward bound flight in HK.
Lots of babies with very tired and extremely happy parents.
Some how, those flights never seem long and noisy.

Pro-abortionists cover for their morally repugnant position by trying to convince themselves and anyone who will listen that’s it’s just a “glob”, but they still know that it’s a human life their advocating taking. So, they have to go one step further and deny that there’s a God or any form of moral judgement that will be imposed on them for what they truly know to be a repugnant and vile act.

Trafalgar on August 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I’m not trying to convince you of anything because I really don’t care if you approve of my beliefs. If you want to believe there is a god and that he opposes abortion, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. That’s your business. More power to you.

We’ve been at it 16 months (since applying at our agency). He’s a special needs kid (cleft lip/palate). Non special needs adoption in China has a 6+ year wait. Special needs is a LOT shorter.

As far as the whole process, there’s more paperwork than a mortgage, and you have to have a social worker give you a homestudy (but that’s for any adoption), and you have to take some classes (both on-line and in a classroom), but it’s really fairly painless. So long as you have a good homestudy report and can afford it (or find a way to finance it), and are open to a boy (there’s more boys in the special needs program than girls), chances are you’d be traveling within two years.

I’m sorry, but that is simply not the case. I’m surprised that someone who not only holds no belief in any supernatural power, but also thinks it is the job of doctors to evangelize this “fact” to their patients, would be so dismissive of plain science.

The brain stem develops within the first five weeks of the pregnancy and the child is able to move its limbs (imagine! A “glob of biomatter” with hands and feet and facial features!) by the end of the second month. The only noteworthy benchmark by the time we get all the way to the fifth month is its ability to react to external stimuli.

The criteria for this could not be simpler:
- is it alive? With a beating heart, respiration, and functional nervous system, it is beyond dispute.
- is it human? DNA coding again lays to rest any argument.

Therefore this procedure in any form it is found is nothing less than compelling the end of a living human being.

Of course not, but a first trimester glob of biomatter isn’t a person to begin with. It has no brain.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Actually brain development get underway in ernest in the 3rd week of gestation & moves rapidly in every week that follows.

About 30 years ago we used to think that babies born under 28 weeks wouldn’t survive and then we developed artificial surfactant (it lubricates the lungs so they ca breath on their own) Back then abortions up til 28 weeks were acceptable. After Surfactant the age of “acceptable abortion” was pushed back to 24-25 weeks gestation – that is until a researcher did EEG’s on babies born at 20-21 weeks and found that their results remarkably similar to babies born at full gestation.

Technology has revealed the miracle of life – backing up the age of “acceptable” abortion with every new discovery. Denying that a baby under 20 weeks is a human life is anti-science and frankly a flat-earth view of life. Just because we haven’t developed the technology to save the babies born under 20 weeks or haven’t developed the tools to reveal just how developed they are doesn’t mean it isn’t true or won’t be discovered in the future… after all we can all see the result when the baby is not aborted.

You’re “uncomfortable” with protesting outside his house, Ed? If there were a serial killer out there who bragged about his intention to murder more people, I don’t think anyone would object to making him uncomfortable in his home by holding up signs outside his window.

I’m pro life. I am not religious, however, anyone with half a brain can see that science backs up life starting at conception.

That being said, a big part of me believes that if abortion were illegal, you’d have an awful lot of “undesirable” people sticking coat hangars in themselves. Criminals, will be criminals, kind like the same way drugs or guns being illegal doesn’t stop anyone from obtaining illegal drugs or guns.

My mother had one in the 70′s when she got pregnant by rape. Then my wife and I had one about four years ago. We already have three kids and couldn’t afford and didn’t really want another.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 1:47 PM

My, how convenient.

One of my kids is adopted – from a very similar situation to yours. Birth parents already had two, couldn’t really afford another. They were at least decent enough to give their third a chance in life, even if it wasn’t with them. Unbelievably difficult and unselfish of them, a term obviously foreign to you.

Actually brain development get underway in ernest in the 3rd week of gestation & moves rapidly in every week that follows.

About 30 years ago we used to think that babies born under 28 weeks wouldn’t survive and then we developed artificial surfactant (it lubricates the lungs so they ca breath on their own) Back then abortions up til 28 weeks were acceptable. After Surfactant the age of “acceptable abortion” was pushed back to 24-25 weeks gestation – that is until a researcher did EEG’s on babies born at 20-21 weeks and found that their results remarkably similar to babies born at full gestation.

Technology has revealed the miracle of life – backing up the age of “acceptable” abortion with every new discovery. Denying that a baby under 20 weeks is a human life is anti-science and frankly a flat-earth view of life. Just because we haven’t developed the technology to save the babies born under 20 weeks or haven’t developed the tools to reveal just how developed they are doesn’t mean it isn’t true or won’t be discovered in the future… after all we can all see the result when the baby is not aborted.

batterup on August 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Pretty much this x1000

However, think about the type of people who are going to actually walk into an abortion clinic. These are the kinds of irresponsible, low lifes involved in criminal activity. Making abortion illegal, even with loads of scientific evidence isn’t going to stop them from having an “abortion” on their own.

Best thing to do is educate your children about using birth control, and being responsible.

Connecting the two, are we who have been allowed to live wise enough to judge the potential of these human lives to sanguinely throw more than a million of them away in the trash every year?

there are some decisions that are out of our hands to make, this is one of them. If a pregnancy is reduced to a financial decision or a presumption of later evil, then what initial value is ever going to be placed upon pregnancy and the ensuing care? Either you value life, or you don’t and the rationalization that you have to go through to decide to abort is simply that—a way to demonstrate that life is not valued.

[Gabby] Douglas genuinely doesn’t see color — it’s not her first thought. Yet she was drilled incessantly with questions about being a woman of color in gymnastics. How can she get more African American children to pay attention to gymnastics, she was asked? “I can’t control that,” she said tonelessly.

Perhaps her most baffled moment came when she was asked what she saw when she walked into a gymnastics class for the first time. She replied evenly that she saw a lot of talented athletes. That answer wasn’t good enough. Did she ever think because she was African American and didn’t see many other black gymnasts that she couldn’t succeed at it?

“You know I didn’t,” she answered. “Because everyone told me I had such a beautiful talent. I was a fast learner, quick learner. I picked up stuff very good. I don’t know, I was just a fast learner.”

the left.media from Costas on can’t wait until they destroy this country and the people, the real people, whose only wish is to be free….free from the maudlin claptrap that is the media hive

I’m pro life. I am not religious, however, anyone with half a brain can see that science backs up life starting at conception.

…
1984 in real life on August 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You’d be surprised how many people don’t believe life begins until (insert weeks gestation here). They choose a number based on little if any factual information, because it is just a number, not a person. It’s a pop-culture narrative that saves them from thinking.

I haven’t been disrespectful to anyone. You just don’t like my opinion. Simple as that.

Go RBNY on August 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

This is a cop-out response, as you have not missed a chance to marginalize a person’s faith at every turn, including making some assumptions about posters who were not even of the faith that you supposed.

Whether you’ve shown respect for other views on abortion is open for debate; I don’t recall seeing any particularly harsh responses, for my part. But you definitely have not shown anything approaching that to anyone who openly professed their faith, choosing instead to use it as a bludgeon against their intellect.